Karnataka High Court
Sri D Ramesh Sinha vs State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2020
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRL. RP. NO.233/2020
BETWEEN
SRI D RAMESH SINHA
WRONGLY MENTIONED AS
RAMESH S. SINHA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O. D.V.V. SINHA,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 201,
BLOCK - A2, RK TOWERS,
MAYURI MARG, BEGUMPET,
HYDERABAD 500016,
TELENGANA STATE.
AND ALSO AVAILABLE AT:
SUBRAMANYANAGAR,
P.W.D.OFFICE,
TURUVEKERE TOWN,
TUMKUR-572106.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA K, ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WOMENS' POLICE STATION,
TUMKUR,
REP. BY THE S.P.P.,
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2020
PASSED IN C.C.NO.239/2018 DIRECTING FRAMING OF
CHARGES AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR AN OFFENCE
WHICH ARE MADE PENAL MADE PENAL UNDER
SEC.420,517 AND 504 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND U/S.3 AND
4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
TUMAKURU AND ORDER HIS DISCHARGE IN THE CASE.
THIS CRL.R.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.5 assailing the order passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court' for short) in C.C.No.239/2018 on the application filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C' for short).
3
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
3. The rank of the parties before the trial court is retained for convenience.
4. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the State by Women Police Station, Tumakuru have filed a charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 417 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC' for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'D.P. Act' for short). The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.5 in the chargesheet.
5. The police have registered a case against accused persons on the complaint filed by one 4 Chandrakala H.G, alleging that her marriage engagement was performed on 11.07.2018 with accused No.1 Sri.Sumith and the marriage fixed on 28.08.2018 and 29.08.2018 did not take place. After engagement, accused Nos.1 to 5 came and demanded further dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and 600 grams of golden ornaments, due to which the complaint came to be lodged against accused persons and after the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against accused persons. During the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner being accused No.5 filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C seeking discharge on the ground that the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420 and 417 of IPC does not attract against accused No.5 and he has not at all induced the complainant or her family members to give dowry or golden ornaments. But the allegation against him is only that he went along with other accused and demanded dowry articles and it is only further demand. After considering the arguments, the 5 trial court dismissed his application. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.5 argued that the order under revision is not sustainable under the law. Absolutely there are no ingredients made out by the police as against the petitioner/accused No.5 in order to frame charge either under Section 417 or 420 of IPC and omnibus statement made by the witness only says that the petitioner/accused No.5 went along with other accused. Except the said statement, there is nothing stated against him either for inducing the complainant and her family members to give any articles or dowry to accused No.1. Even otherwise, the statement goes to show that accused No.1 has received the dowry articles and cash but not this accused. Such being the case, the framing of charge against the present petitioner/accused No.5 6 under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC is not correct. Therefore, he prayed for discharge of accused No.5. However, trial Court considered that in view of the statement made by the witnesses that the petitioner/accused No.5 was also present while demanding the dowry prior to the engagement and after the engagement utmost would attract Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and hence, prayed to set-aside the order.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the order passed by the trial court and contended that the present petitioner/accused No.5 is the main person from the family members of the accused. He was the elder and he has participated in all the programmes. Such being the case, discharging him from the offence is not correct. This Court cannot appreciate the statement of every witness and frame charge. Therefore, he prayed for dismissing the petition. 7
8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government pleader for the respondent, the point that arise for consideration is :-
'Whether any material isl placed on record by the investigating officer to frame charges against the petitioner/accused No.5 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 417 of IPC and the order under revision calls for any interference?'
9. After perusal of the records, they go to show that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is accused No.5, elder brother of accused No.2 and uncle of accused No.1.The marriage engagement was held in the presence of elders on 11.07.2018 and some of the dowry i.e., cash and ornaments are said to be given to accused No.1 at the time of the engagement ceremony and subsequent to the engagement ceremony, the marriage date was fixed to 28.08.2018 and 29.08.2018. Prior to that, the petitioner/accused No.5 is said to have 8 accompanied accused Nos.1 to 4, who went to the house of the complainant and demanded further dowry of 600 grams of golden ornaments and five lakh rupees cash, due to which, the complaint came to be filed. The statement of the complainant, brother and other witnesses says that prior to the marriage engagement also, the petitioner/accused No.5 went along with other accused and demanded golden ornaments and cash thereby the complainant's parents gave cash and golden ornaments to accused No.1 at the time of engagement ceremony and all the statements go to show that subsequent to the engagement, petitioner/accused No.5 accompanied accused Nos.1 to 4 and demanded further dowry, which goes to show that offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act attracts against this petitioner/accused No.5 along with accused Nos.1 to 4.
9
10. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M. Giriprasad v. K. Munikrishna Reddy reported in LAWS (APH) 2014 3 50 and in the case of Varthya Shanker and Another vs. State of Telangana reported in LAWS (APH) 2018 6 60, wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that after the engagement, if the marriage was not performed, it will not amount to cheating and promise to marriage is not an inducement and the offence of cheating is not attracted.
11. In this case, admittedly, accused No.1 was bridegroom, whose engagement was held with complainant. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are the family members of accused No.1. Accused No.5 though is not residing along with other accused is said to be the elder member in the family of accused No.2 and has participated in the marriage talks of accused No.1 and 10 complainant. However, the statement of witnesses go to show that he has not induced or obtained any ornaments from the complainant and has cheated the complainant or their family members. Therefore, learned counsel rightly stated that offence under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC would not attract against this petitioner, but the trial Court though considered the same, held that the Court shall not evaluate materials and documents on record and see whether there is a prima facie case to proceed against the accused at the time of framing of charge, but the order does not reflect what is the actual distinct charges are to be framed against each of the accused. Merely stating, there are grounds to frame charges is not enough. On the other hand, the Court is required to consider what are the charges that would attract against each of the accused. Admittedly, accused No.1 was the groom who demanded and received dowry ornaments and by making a demand for purpose of marriage, the family members i.e., accused 11 Nos.2 to 4 also accompany accused No.1 who have been benefited out of dowry ornaments and cash but the petitioner/accused No.5 has only accompany accused Nos.1 to 4 as a family members or elder, participated and the negotiation was done by him by demanding dowry articles and cash on behalf of accused No.1. Therefore, as already stated above, offence under Sections 3 and 4 would attract against accused No.5 but not Sections 420 or 417 of IPC. This aspect is not properly considered by the trial court in its impugned order. Therefore, the order under revision suffers an error. Hence, the same requires to be set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Order under revision passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru in C.C.No.239/2018 on the application filed by the petitioner/accused 12 No.5 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C is set aside.
(ii) The charge against accused No.5 under Sections 420 and 417 of IPC requires to be set aside. Accused No.5 shall have be discharged for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 417 of IPC.
However, the matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration by taking into consideration the observations made by this Court and specify what are the charges that are going to be framed against this accused and other accused and proceed to frame the charges by taking into consideration Chapter XVII of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
13
In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration. Hence, disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE dn/-
CT-HR